I probably shouldn't respond, after all this is not a contest of attrition. Ahh, what the heck.

And just to repeat, I'm not disagreeing with your recommended methods, just some of the underlying assumptions.


I've realized there is a discrepancy between how Pruitt and Metrigear use the term "tangential" in this context, so I'm going to avoid using that term for the moment.

Both Pruitt and Metrigear recognize that it is only at the 3:00 position when all of the pedaling force goes into pushing the bike forward. As you push further down, more of the energy winds up bending the spindle in a direction that does not contribute to moving the bike forward. By the time you hit "bottom dead center," and for the entire upstroke, none of the force you are applying winds up pushing the bike forward.


OK then. Since you recognize that these devices are better measurements than subjective evaluations of effort, are you really asserting that both Pruitt and Metrigear, having independently used their different devices on numerous subjects, are just dead wrong?


OK, let's assume that I misunderstood part of your position. It still isn't the case that you are providing 100% even torque during the rotations. You have a spike of useful power at the 3:00 position (which pushes the bike forward), followed by lots of power that just bends the spindle (which is wasted), followed by a near-total drop-off of power as you just try to get your foot out of the way. So it's spike-spike-spike-spike-spike etc which, like a 2-cylinder engine, winds up producing a consistent power output. (This was the point of the Metrigear chart I posted; and yes, of course the average is spread over time, that's what an average is; otherwise it would say "sum of power.")

This is even more pronounced when standing. Perouse http://www.metrigear.com/2010/03/19/is-your/ for a few diagrams of standing vs sitting.


You have, but again your methodology simply is not strong enough determine that this is due to a massive application of power on the upstroke, rather than some other aspect at work. E.g. pro road race sprinters go from somewhere around 25-30mph while seated to 40-45mph standing in a matter of seconds, and afaik they don't pull their back wheels off the ground. (They'd almost certainly lose speed and crash if they did.)


As I said in my last post, there are certain elements that are purely my own conclusions drawn from the data and applied to a touring context -- specifically platforms vs clips for touring. I have not seen anything from any of these researchers on this specific topic -- nor am I making particularly strong statements on that specific aspect.

But, this is precisely what Pruitt says in the article. "The Best Cyclists Don’t Produce Power When They Pull Up on the Backstroke: As mentioned earlier, force-measuring pedals show us that no cyclists, not even track pursuiters who are capable of silky-smooth pedal strokes at 130 rpm, really exert upward force when the pedal is coming up from dead bottom center."

Sounds like a categorical assertion to me. Am I missing something?


Are you asking for a challenge?!?

Heh. I will freely admit that I don't know exactly how much efficiency is involved -- but, unfortunately, neither do you. For either of us to make such a claim, we'd need multiple tests with multiple riders, loaded and unloaded, using power meters. That probably won't happen outside of an academic context. However, based on the evidence, you simply do not double your power when you clip in.

Second, 400k in 15 hours is not a tour. That's a brevet. Tours are multiple days with plenty of rest; sometimes with luggage, sometimes with a SAG van. And as I tried to suggest, if you are the "hammer all day type," then yes you'll most likely prefer clips. If you are the "I don't want to fuss with cleats while I'm stopping at this restaurant," I'm gonna say that convenience and comfort are more important than sheer performance.